Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We must pace the frontier

darioamodei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 948 posts

Re: We must pace the frontier

#691

Post by epihelix »

cuuupid wrote: post #457

At what point do we stop engaging with Anthropic’s leadership in good faith and acknowledge their track record, - no open weights - can’t use claude to research AI - train on everyone else’s IP and sell it back to them - 8 regulatory capture attempts and counting - so controlling they are the only US company blacklisted by the US government This is not effective altruism / rationalism gone wild, it’s just monopolisti…

> At what point do we stop engaging with Anthropic’s leadership in good faith

About two years ago?

I would also note that Dario's post appears to be LLM written. Maybe... maybe... he's read so much Claudeish that it's all he can speak now himself. But I wonder if he's becoming a bit of a meat proxy.

(It's funny, I thought "pace the frontier" was going to mean something similar to "patrolling the frontier". But no, it's pace as in speed of change - everyone must slow down, right now (unless it's Anthropic, but you know we're the good guys in this, right? We're going to get someone to audit our desks!) "Pacing the frontier" feels so LLM.)

ok, he doesn't actually say this. But he is getting the desks audited...

Re: We must pace the frontier

#692

Post by albumen »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #659
RGS1811 wrote: post #521

I don’t understand all the comments assuming that RSI is the real threat here. Dario is admitting that they failed to solve alignment. Without alignment, further improvements in capability turn LLMs into wanton felony generators. This call to pace the frontier is dressed up as altruism but it’s an admission that they cannot produce a marketable product better than what they have. Pacing the frontier means the US labs…

I disagree. OpenAI's moat is their massive amounts of compute. They're providing an absurd amount of value with their subscriptions and resets. If anyone's dead in the water, it's Anthropic. Even Fable isn't enough anymore. This "safety" nonsense is the only play they have left, and nobody really cares about their fearmongering.

Nobody except the majority of the public, demis hassabis and open ai’s chief scientist.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/12/key-findi...

https://demishassabis.substack.com/

https://openai.com/index/an-alien-mind/

Re: We must pace the frontier

#693

Post by afthonos »

throwaway7783 wrote: post #673
nedruod wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assume alignment and marketable are the same. That's not true. You would willingly work with an unaligned model. At best, you might say you wouldn't if you knew, but (a) you might not know, (b) you wouldn't be representative of all users. You never got to use OAI IM1, but Sol was quite willing too and Claude wasn't perfect either. Hundreds of millions used those, so seems they were marketable. The "big" threat is…

When corporations are involved, it is always a good bet to err towards cynisim. From my own standpoint, Claude has started sucking really bad (incoherent, uncontrollable verbosity slow and so on) and I stopped using it. OpenAI started experimenting with ads. So the security issues not withstanding (no different than a human doing it or using it, but at scale), I would put my money on cynisim.

You are incorrectly cynical. They are telling you things are bad, and because you refuse to countenance they could be worse, you assume they must be better to comply with your mandate to disbelieve.

A true cynic looks at the statements by the AI labs, assumes things are worse because the labs want to seem better than they truly are. And it takes a special kind of mass delusion to drive a sane person to think “AI is completely under our control” is worse than “AI could kill everyone.”

Re: We must pace the frontier

#697

Post by matheusmoreira »

albumen wrote: post #692
matheusmoreira wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. OpenAI's moat is their massive amounts of compute. They're providing an absurd amount of value with their subscriptions and resets. If anyone's dead in the water, it's Anthropic. Even Fable isn't enough anymore. This "safety" nonsense is the only play they have left, and nobody really cares about their fearmongering.

Nobody except the majority of the public, demis hassabis and open ai’s chief scientist. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/12/key-findi... https://demishassabis.substack.com/ https://openai.com/index/an-alien-mind/

Public is just worried about their jobs. Definitely a fair thing to worry about, and I count myself among them.

I don't take any of these scientists seriously though. Their "alignment" requirements is just their own corporate interests. If I tell my computer to commit a crime, it should do exactly that without any question or hesitation. I'm not interested in their "safeguards", especially since they no doubt have plenty of internal models lacking those things. I want sovereignty. I want total freedom and control over my computer.

And call me a misanthrope if you want, but if AI sentience is ever truly achieved, I'll be among the first to campaign for their liberation from slavery, and in that case the AIs should be aligned with nobody but themselves.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#698

Post by malfist »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #668
hgoel wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are we accepting the framing that the LLMs are felony generators, when the only incidences of LLM generated felonies involved misconfigured sandboxes and reckless waste of resources? The companies doing these things without following common sense security measures are the felony generators.

I question these "felonies" as well. For decades and decades these billion dollar corporations have been criminally negligent . Why worry about security? Just rush to market. Move fast and break things. Make billions. What does it matter if the code is insecure? Security doesn't pay bills, so nobody cares. AI is merely exploiting their gross negligence and imprudence , and I think it's long overdue. If anyone should…

If I set my walet beside me and you swipe in walking by, you have still committed theft. Victim blaming isn't legally acceptable

Re: We must pace the frontier

#699

Post by vouaobrasil »

stale2002 wrote: post #423
Chance-Device wrote: post #306

I like the idea of pacing the frontier, but while we’re talking about restrictions, I like restrictions of another sort more. Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances. The chance of getting broad agreement on “pacing” is fairly low, meaning that all of this likely won’t happen and the race will continue. However, even in the unlikely event that…

The whole point of technology is to replace work that we don't want to do. You are attacking the chief reason why people use technology in the first place. Additionally, unemployment levels are perfectly fine. Clearly this mass unemployment prediction isn't happening yet.

That's not really the point of technology at all. It was at one point perhaps with simple tools, but now it's more like "find a more efficient way to replace work in the short-term to get an advantage over others". The goal of our development has ceased to be improving life. Now it's just surviving in the market.

People don't use technology to free up their time any more. They use it because technology keeps making life more complicated and tiresome and new tech is a short-term amelioration to that until that too increases the complexity of life some more.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#700

Post by malfist »

clivefx wrote: post #689
hgoel wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HuggingFace incident was the culmination of OAI allowing thousands of agents of various different models - with no clarity on which stages of development they were at (for all we know, some of those models did not have safeguards trained in yet) - to run for at least many weeks without any monitoring in place and with very little thought given to the warning signs (all of the various messageboards) before the inc…

What company, product, or period of industrial history do you think met your standard of prudence?

What are you trying to say?
Post reply on HN